Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

It's not like asking George Lucas to make Greedo to shoot first.
It's like asking George Lucas to remake Episode 1 without midichlorians, or Jar Jar, or Jake Lloyd, or with him directing, or writing or if possible even aware that it's being made. With an 80km exclusion zone around any part of the movie production where failure to comply results in him being attacked by angry bees.

Have left PA forums.
If this community believes that hating someone based soley upon their gender is acceptable and understandable, I have no interest in being a part of it.

It's not like asking George Lucas to make Greedo to shoot first.
It's like asking George Lucas to remake Episode 1 without midichlorians, or Jar Jar, or Jake Lloyd, or with him directing, or writing or if possible even aware that it's being made. With an 80km exclusion zone around any part of the movie production where failure to comply results in him being attacked by angry bees.

Ha ha ha ha. Where is the charity campaign for that, I am on board. Especially with the angry bees part.

That's pretty unreasonable. There's no way you could fill 80km with angry bees without someone innocent getting stung.

Oh no, it wouldn't be filled. There's just be, ya' know, bee wranglers. Bee wranglers who guard the perimiter and have GPS tracking on Lucas' movement. And then once he got too close, only then would the bees be forcibly unleashed. Preferably by bee gun.

You're looking at a different analogy.
You can't get angry at Lucas for changing his creation, while asking BioWare to change theirs, just because you like some things and dislike others.
You are not the author.

You're looking at a different analogy.
You can't get angry at Lucas for changing his creation, while asking BioWare to change theirs, just because you like some things and dislike others.
You are not the author.

I'm pretty sure you're allowed to hate something that is terrible. No matter how much you previously admired the one who made it.

First off, people are constantly asking for Lucas to stop changing Star Wars. Secondly, this isn't people getting angry at some supposed "artistic choice" or any other such nonsense. The driving message behind this movement is dissatisfaction with a product. We were promised and paid for a certain product. This product was not delivered and now we want a resolution to this issue. To go back to the Star Wars analogy, Lucas promised a new Star Wars film with episode one. What he actually made was a documentary about, I dunno, trees. People would certainly demand their money back and/or more than likely demand for him to make the movie that he promised. People wouldn't be throwing around the word entitled[the internet's new favorite buzz word] quite so much. Nor do they if someone sends their food back because they were not satisfied with it.

You know what I really don't understand about this whole movement to get a new ending? What makes anyone think that even if BioWare DOES make a new ending, that it will be the ending you hoped for? If they couldn't provide a satisfying ending with their original plan for the story (which I'm sure they put an enormous amount of thought and effort into writing, or at least as much as they were capable of), what makes you think they'd be able to do better a second time around?

If anything, a new ending would feel tacked on and just be total pandering. They wouldn't be giving you their idea for the ending, they'd be giving the fans a footnote cobbled together at the last second based on what they've been told the ending should be, and it wouldn't feel like a natural part of the story they spent so long developing at all. You'd be better off just writing the ending you were hoping for yourself and then pretending it's the actual ending that was in the game.

If you're so upset about the ending of ME3 to the point of wanting to do something about it, then simply stop supporting BioWare with your wallet. If you're not willing to do that, then you should nut up and accept the fact that getting a shitty ending is just one risk you take by being the customer of entertainment. Sure, express your frustration about how disappointed or angered you were, but to expect the creators to change the ending because you didn't like it? Imagine if that sort of thing was tolerated in any other medium, if people just allowed filmmakers to retcon the shitty ending of their movie after hearing everyone say how shitty it was, or if it was common for musicians to re-record albums they already released a year later because the original sounded like shit? That's encouraging a low standard of quality...you're saying artists can get away with selling a poor product at first as long as they're able to fix it based on feedback later and then sell you a whole new product. That's madness.

I understand that the Mass Effect games are incredibly immersive, I love the games and have become totally emotionally involved while playing them. But at the end of the day, entertainment can fail to meet your expectations...this isn't a new concept. When it does, you need to step back and realize that it's only entertainment, and that perhaps you don't need to place as much importance in it as you might want to. Expecting creators of art (and the Mass Effect games are excellent examples of games as art) to tailor to your every whim, instead of crafting the story that they wanted to craft as an artist, contradicts the whole idea of art in the fist place. When you do so, you're acting entitled and childish.

This is the sort of silliness that causes people who don't know any better to look at the gaming community and say "What a bunch of nerds."

That had to have been the worst analogy I've seen yet. Don't let Greedo shoot first? I don't think a single Star Wars fan ever wanted that, and in fact that pissed a lot of Star Wars fans off!

Portraying donators to a Child's Play charity to show support for changing the ending as selfish and entitled over the non-literal name is beyond condescending. I'm going to make it a point not to watch any more Checkpoint episodes.

The more members of the gaming press points to the charity and scream entitlement, the more I realize how bad our gaming press is.

Not to wheedle, but the "Take Back Mass Effect 3" isn't "Take back Mass Effect from Bioware." It's a play on "Take Back Earth," the game's oft-repeated marketing slogan and mission statement. You'll also hear disaffected fans encouraging one another to "Hold the line."

Also:
Art is art and the creator is the creator, but I have a difficult time accepting this idea that the game is somehow sacrosanct now that it's complete, artist has spoken, word of the lord has been writ in stone, etc etc.

Bioware has made it public policy to retroactively sell characters, locations, races, events, and more into their already-completed stories FOR YEARS. Pay an extra ten dollars, and you can rewrite the story of Commander Shepard's epic battle to include a hard-bitten mercenary, a clash with an information dealer, a campaign across the surface of a previously-nonexistent world.

So their art isn't sacrosanct when they want to retroactively modify it in order to create new profit -- but when a majority of fans are unhappy with a very specific piece, suddenly it's all on heavy lockdown and any change would be akin to weak-kneed knuckling-under and an act of artistic prostitution?

they'd be giving the fans a footnote cobbled together at the last second based on what they've been told the ending should be, and it wouldn't feel like a natural part of the story they spent so long developing at all.

This is the problem with the endings as they stand right now. They're the ending to a completely different game. Moreover, the ending probably feels so completely out of touch with the rest of the story because it wasn't peer reviewed by the entire writing team, the way the rest of the story was. If, as a result of the Retake Mass Effect campaign, they just take the exact same ideas that are already in the ending, and gave them a thorough and brutal peer review, there's nothing to say that the same ideas couldn't still work. They'd just be presented in a way that actually belongs in the Mass Effect universe.

I put my feelings into words the best that I could in another thread:

I guess I still have the foolish hope that they'll change it, even though the odds against that are miniscule. So as a result I keep talking about what I think was wrong with it. Mostly I just feel more and more apathetic about the whole thing. But that's... that's not exactly where I thought I'd be at this point.

I joked at other people for bringing up the orgasm analogy, but it fits pretty well. It's like I had a crush on a guy for the years (Mass Effect/Bioware), flirtation steadily and slowly escalating between us, and then when I finally slept with him I didn't feel a thing. All that build up and now I'm not even interested any more. The problem is that I want to be interested. So I'm asking the guy if it's he can maybe read a book about how to please a woman and then give it another try.

No one in these kinds of videos talks about the Bioware end of things. The fact that they pretty much lied in their entire advertising campaign.

Why isn't anyone here talking about the promises of 16/17 unique endings, where every player gets a different/unique finale to their game? Or the fact that Bioware promised there wouldn't be an A, B, C decision outcome? Or that they promised each ending would take into account all three games worth of choices?

I didn't see any of that for the majority of the final Earth campaign. Except for the fact that certain characters weren't dead, or that they may have one different line of dialogue if you got freaky with them.

they'd be giving the fans a footnote cobbled together at the last second based on what they've been told the ending should be, and it wouldn't feel like a natural part of the story they spent so long developing at all.

This is the problem with the endings as they stand right now. They're the ending to a completely different game. Moreover, the ending probably feels so completely out of touch with the rest of the story because it wasn't peer reviewed by the entire writing team, the way the rest of the story was. If, as a result of the Retake Mass Effect campaign, they just take the exact same ideas that are already in the ending, and gave them a thorough and brutal peer review, there's nothing to say that the same ideas couldn't still work. They'd just be presented in a way that actually belongs in the Mass Effect universe.

I disagree. I've played the game and been disappointed (highly) by the ending, but even to me the concept of them doing so much work on the game but then neglecting to put as much focus and peer review into just the ending alone seems extremely unlikely to me. I really can't comprehend how they could allow that to happen, and I don't believe that they did...I think the real problem is just that they were unable to turn their incredible buildup into a satisfying ending period. The idea that they could do a better job if they just tried again, that they could somehow come up with something better than what they came up with is entirely wishful thinking, and foolish wishful thinking at that. If they could do so that easily, why wouldn't they have in the first place?

Wanting something different than what you got isn't unusual or unacceptable. It's a natural reaction to getting something other than what you wanted. But the correct response when this happens is to say "Boy, that sucked" and then to move on. It's the act of demanding that the creators change it that is childish and stupid. The idea that retconning the ending will somehow completely undo the damage that's already been done by seeing the failure of their original vision is expecting nothing more than a band-aid in order to heal a massive wound. It's a pointless self-indulgent waste of time.

Also, to those claiming that the advertising campaign for the game blatantly lied about the product your received...things said in interviews by the developers (which is where the "lies" that fans have pointed out all come from) do not legally count as part of the advertising campaign for the games. Not only that, but I hate that they keep getting called "promises" because nobody in any of those interviews ever "promised" anything. Yes, they were entirely misleading, and yes, they're assholes because of that (and should apologize), but legally they did nothing wrong and therefore demanding a changed product is still an idiotic course of action.

That had to have been the worst analogy I've seen yet. Don't let Greedo shoot first? I don't think a single Star Wars fan ever wanted that, and in fact that pissed a lot of Star Wars fans off!

Portraying donators to a Child's Play charity to show support for changing the ending as selfish and entitled over the non-literal name is beyond condescending. I'm going to make it a point not to watch any more Checkpoint episodes.

The more members of the gaming press points to the charity and scream entitlement, the more I realize how bad our gaming press is.

That's a two-way street. Using Child's Play for this movement can also be construed as merely an attempt to appear legitimate.

Also, the vocal minority of any hobby is a group of self-entitled babies.

they'd be giving the fans a footnote cobbled together at the last second based on what they've been told the ending should be, and it wouldn't feel like a natural part of the story they spent so long developing at all.

This is the problem with the endings as they stand right now. They're the ending to a completely different game. Moreover, the ending probably feels so completely out of touch with the rest of the story because it wasn't peer reviewed by the entire writing team, the way the rest of the story was. If, as a result of the Retake Mass Effect campaign, they just take the exact same ideas that are already in the ending, and gave them a thorough and brutal peer review, there's nothing to say that the same ideas couldn't still work. They'd just be presented in a way that actually belongs in the Mass Effect universe.

I disagree. I've played the game and been disappointed (highly) by the ending, but even to me the concept of them doing so much work on the game but then neglecting to put as much focus and peer review into just the ending alone seems extremely unlikely to me. I really can't comprehend how they could allow that to happen, and I don't believe that they did...

Well it is hard to comprehend how it happened. Nevertheless, it did. Bioware is making no secret of it. Only two writers were allowed in on the ending. It was kept a secret from everyone else. It sounds to me like someone's ego got the better of them.

I think the real problem is just that they were unable to turn their incredible buildup into a satisfying ending period. The idea that they could do a better job if they just tried again, that they could somehow come up with something better than what they came up with is entirely wishful thinking, and foolish wishful thinking at that. If they could do so that easily, why wouldn't they have in the first place?

Like I said, ego and lack of peer review are to blame. I can easily seeing what they did turn satisfying. Heck, they had no problem with this kind of thing in DA:O. Bioware knows how to do it, they understand the process, but someone's ego in thinking they should bypass the process because they knew better derailed the whole thing.

You're looking at a different analogy.
You can't get angry at Lucas for changing his creation, while asking BioWare to change theirs, just because you like some things and dislike others.
You are not the author.

I'm pretty sure you're allowed to hate something that is terrible. No matter how much you previously admired the one who made it.

That's a two-way street. Using Child's Play for this movement can also be construed as merely an attempt to appear legitimate.

Also, the vocal minority of any hobby is a group of self-entitled babies.

Maybe, but the general sentiment among the movement is that instead of simply bitching about the issue on forums, they would bitch about the issue and give some games to kids.

And those kids will say "You donated money to help sick kids because you think getting a new ending to a video game is that important? ...I have cancer at 12 years old. You, sir, are an idiot. But thanks anyway!"

That's a two-way street. Using Child's Play for this movement can also be construed as merely an attempt to appear legitimate.

Also, the vocal minority of any hobby is a group of self-entitled babies.

Maybe, but the general sentiment among the movement is that instead of simply bitching about the issue on forums, they would bitch about the issue and give some games to kids.

And those kids will say "You donated money to help sick kids because you think getting a new ending to a video game is that important? ...I have cancer at 12 years old. You, sir, are an idiot. But thanks anyway!"

That's a two-way street. Using Child's Play for this movement can also be construed as merely an attempt to appear legitimate.

Also, the vocal minority of any hobby is a group of self-entitled babies.

Maybe, but the general sentiment among the movement is that instead of simply bitching about the issue on forums, they would bitch about the issue and give some games to kids.

And those kids will say "You donated money to help sick kids because you think getting a new ending to a video game is that important? ...I have cancer at 12 years old. You, sir, are an idiot. But thanks anyway!"

Donating money is bad, got it.

I certainly wasn't implying that donating to a cause such as Child's Play for any reason was a bad thing. I was attempting (<key word) to be humorous by pointing out that those you're donating money to would likely be mighty perplexed at the stark contrast between what they think is a worthwhile cause and what those who donated do. I suppose it was intended to be slightly critical, although to no specific person...I'm sure there are some (read: some) people who donated simply hoping for a new ending to ME3 without even knowing the cause they were actually donating to. Which, despite having a good result (kids get charity), is still silly.

Clearly I fail at humor, though. I'll go condescend to some other part of the internet now. Or maybe my real life friends...they've been getting a bit too full of themselves lately.

Not to wheedle, but the "Take Back Mass Effect 3" isn't "Take back Mass Effect from Bioware." It's a play on "Take Back Earth," the game's oft-repeated marketing slogan and mission statement. You'll also hear disaffected fans encouraging one another to "Hold the line."

Also:
Art is art and the creator is the creator, but I have a difficult time accepting this idea that the game is somehow sacrosanct now that it's complete, artist has spoken, word of the lord has been writ in stone, etc etc.

Bioware has made it public policy to retroactively sell characters, locations, races, events, and more into their already-completed stories FOR YEARS. Pay an extra ten dollars, and you can rewrite the story of Commander Shepard's epic battle to include a hard-bitten mercenary, a clash with an information dealer, a campaign across the surface of a previously-nonexistent world.

So their art isn't sacrosanct when they want to retroactively modify it in order to create new profit -- but when a majority of fans are unhappy with a very specific piece, suddenly it's all on heavy lockdown and any change would be akin to weak-kneed knuckling-under and an act of artistic prostitution?

Why?

Have they ever sold *altered* story lines though? They've certainly added to the story, but presumably we don't see every second of Shepard's life. So, it's not really changing the story by giving additional side content so much as it is fleshing out some less critical details. It's probably a moot point though. I don't think anyone would have a problem if they decided to release DLC that altered the ending, other than the "grumble grumble paying for content that should have been in the main game" type of stuff.

The problem I have is with people demanding that they change it, or trying to shame them into it, which is how the charity thing comes off to me. The art isn't sacrosanct, but telling them to change it to suit your personal preferences is tacky.

That's a two-way street. Using Child's Play for this movement can also be construed as merely an attempt to appear legitimate.

Also, the vocal minority of any hobby is a group of self-entitled babies.

Maybe, but the general sentiment among the movement is that instead of simply bitching about the issue on forums, they would bitch about the issue and give some games to kids.

And those kids will say "You donated money to help sick kids because you think getting a new ending to a video game is that important? ...I have cancer at 12 years old. You, sir, are an idiot. But thanks anyway!"

Donating money is bad, got it.

I was attempting (<key word) to be humorous. I certainly wasn't implying that donating for any reason was a bad thing. Just that if the people you were donating to knew why, they would likely be mighty perplexed at the stark contrast between what they think is a worthwhile cause and what those who donated do.

Heh, really? You'd really think that? If I was a kid in the hospital with cancer, and got to play some video game that I'd been wanting to play forever and it kept my mind off of being in the hospital in the first place, do you really think I would give a flying flip why I got to play that game? I mean I never went to the hospital as a kid, but I still remember what it was like to be a kid. As long as I got to do stuff I wanted, I didn't really care much about the means that got me there. I didn't even think about "how".

Anyway, my first thought about seeing the campaign was that it was a very nifty and clever way to say, "See, we actually have money, and we will spend it on ending DLC if you make it." Normally this is not the kind of thing that can be quantified, because people who disagree with the group complaining will say, "Oh sure, they saaaaay they'll buy this DLC when it comes out, but they probably don't even have any money! Any 12 year old can claim that they'll spend money on something when they actually won't!"

Still not sure why people think 70k to child's play is a bad thing. Worst case scenario, Child's Play gets a fuckton of money and Bioware fans have to eventually accept that Bioware isn't going to change anything. Best case scenario, Child's Play gets a fuckton of money and Bioware fans get a DLC that they pay $10 to get, and those that don't think the ending should change just don't buy the DLC. I'm having a hard time seeing a downside.

Well yes, actually, they have. Baldur's Gate. I haven't played the games myself, but I understand one of them ends with the core cast dying in a cave-in after defeating the Big Bad. A subsequent expansion retcons this, and opens with the characters dusting themselves and heading off to more adventures.

And if we take it beyond just Bioware, the idea absolutely has precedent, the most frequently-cited of which is Fallout 3's Broken Steel. It adds an entirely new "final option" which radically alters the ending of the game, in accordance with fan requests. And it's one of the most-consumed pieces of DLC ever. And at least the elements of it which "fix" an ending many considered to be "broken" are all but universally praised.

Heh, really? You'd really think that? If I was a kid in the hospital with cancer, and got to play some video game that I'd been wanting to play forever and it kept my mind off of being in the hospital in the first place, do you really think I would give a flying flip why I got to play that game? I mean I never went to the hospital as a kid, but I still remember what it was like to be a kid. As long as I got to do stuff I wanted, I didn't really care much about the means that got me there. I didn't even think about "how".

Yarg, you keep forcing my hand! I wasn't trying to actually say that they would really question it or care much at all in real life...I was exaggerating for the sake of humor. My point is simply that, being in their position, they almost certainly wouldn't understand caring so much about such a thing, to the point that they might view it as trivial (and rightfully so). In no way did I mean to say they wouldn't still be gracious for the charity they were receiving. Hence the "thanks anyways!" at the end of my original joke.

That's a two-way street. Using Child's Play for this movement can also be construed as merely an attempt to appear legitimate.

No, it's a pretty one-way street actually. It's peaceful protesting and it benefits children in hospitals. And just what is 'legitimate' to you? I think it's pretty legitimate that a huge amount of people are unhappy with the ending!

Well yes, actually, they have. Baldur's Gate. I haven't played the games myself, but I understand one of them ends with the core cast dying in a cave-in after defeating the Big Bad. A subsequent expansion retcons this, and opens with the characters dusting themselves and heading off to more adventures.

And if we take it beyond just Bioware, the idea absolutely has precedent, the most frequently-cited of which is Fallout 3's Broken Steel. It adds an entirely new "final option" which radically alters the ending of the game, in accordance with fan requests. And it's one of the most-consumed pieces of DLC ever. And at least the elements of it which "fix" an ending many considered to be "broken" are all but universally praised.

I'm aware of the Broken Steel example, but I was specifically referring to Bioware since that is the "creator" in question.

It's been close to a decade since I played BG2. I don't recall dying at the end, so the beginning to the expansion wouldn't really be a retcon. Even if it was, it's the launching point for a completely new story so I don't know that it can really be considered an alteration. Do you consider the D2:LoD expansion to be an alteration to the end of Diablo 2?

My analogy had nothing to do with the prequel trilogy. I was saying that the people asking BioWare to change their creation, are the same people who get angry at Lucas for changing his.

You don't get to make that call.
Just because you bought the game or movie, and like things this way or that way, doesn't actually give you the right to have it go the way you want.

The best explanation I've seen is that ME3 was the ending. The entire game was about dealing with the consequences of your choices. This whole "they sold me a lie" thing is bullshit.

No. We are perfectly within our right to demand a better ending. We cannot force them, but we can show our displeasure and hurt their profits, and there is nothing wrong with that. They want to sell us more DLC, and we won't buy it without a revised ending. And they will care about that.

Talk about entitlement all you want. We're their consumers, and that gives us a say.

In some ways, I agree with the "all of ME3 is the third act of a story".

But that sort of falls apart when they use "take back earth" as this framing device and set you to the task of Lord of the Rings -style "marshaling the armies." The game clearly builds towards an explosive climax in which all of your choices will be significant. And then drops the ball. I don't think there's a single person who didn't know know in advance that, when gathering those various War Assets, DIDN'T expect them to make a return later in the game, or to factor into some dynamically-driven climax like ME2 had. And yet most of them simply disappear into the War Assets score and are never heard from again. Those remaining do not modify your experience in any way, except that this or that NPC is standing in the command center at the end. You could play Mass Effect 3 all the way from 1, or as a total newcomer, and 95% of the climax of the game will be exactly the same.

And that's not what people anticipated after the game design LABYRINTH that was the Suicide Mission. It's not what people were promised when they pre-ordered. It's not what people purchased when they paid $60 at Gamestop. It's an entirely different creature.

Been a huge fan of LLR for a while, but... I'm pretty disappointed to see you guys jump on this bandwagon. There's a massive list of claims that Bioware made and not a single one of them were met - they never said that Mass Effect 3 was the end itself (In fact, they said that it would stand on its own as a game by itself. By association, it would follow literary conventions like the previous two in that case... And it does, so that argument falls flat.) What they did say was that the endings would be radically different, that people would be abuzz with how their different Shep's made out. Not what colour explosion they got followed by an *ADVERTISEMENT*

And you know what? You're right, Bioware doesn't HAVE to change anything. However, they ARE known for being very collaborative with their fans, and have opened up discussions as to possible additions and changes. This doesn't even need to be discussed anymore, really. Things are moving along in a civil manner, and pressure from the press doesn't help anyone. People are allowed to express their dissatisfaction however they want. If it's raising money for charity, so be it.

You're looking at a different analogy.
You can't get angry at Lucas for changing his creation, while asking BioWare to change theirs, just because you like some things and dislike others.
You are not the author.

Yes I can! Because I can complain when Lucas tries to fix what isn't broken, and ends up breaking it. While Bioware has something broken and I think they should fix it.

If George Lucas were to release a special edition of Return of the Jedi where the Ewoks and all their stupid scenes had been seamlessly replaced with a badass wookie army (like had been originally intended) the Star Wars fandom would rejoice

Sadly, he just edits the force ghosts at the end and inserts out of place musical numbers.

Fixer40000 on March 2012

Have left PA forums.
If this community believes that hating someone based soley upon their gender is acceptable and understandable, I have no interest in being a part of it.